Re: [PATCH 0/9] MISRA C 2012 8.1 rule fixes

[Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Jan,

On 22.06.2022 12:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.06.2022 09:02, Michal Orzel wrote:
>> This series fixes all the findings for MISRA C 2012 8.1 rule, reported by
>> cppcheck 2.7 with misra addon, for Arm (arm32/arm64 - target allyesconfig).
>> Fixing this rule comes down to replacing implicit 'unsigned' with explicit
>> 'unsigned int' type as there are no other violations being part of that rule
>> in the Xen codebase.
> 
> I'm puzzled, I have to admit. While I agree with all the examples in the
> doc, I notice that there's no instance of "signed" or "unsigned" there.
> Which matches my understanding that "unsigned" and "signed" on their own
> (just like "long") are proper types, and hence the omission of "int"
> there is not an "omission of an explicit type".
> 
Cppcheck was choosed as a tool for MISRA checking and it is considering it as a 
violation.
It treats unsigned as an implicit type. You can see this flag in cppcheck 
source code:

"fIsImplicitInt          = (1U << 31),   // Is "int" token implicitly added?"

> Nevertheless I think we have had the intention to use "unsigned int"
> everywhere, but simply for cosmetic / style reasons (while I didn't ever
> see anyone request the use of "long int" in place of "long", despite it
> also being possible to combine with "double"), so I'm happy to see this
> being changed. Just that (for now) I don't buy the justification.
> 
> Jan

Cheers,
Michal